I'm uncertain if the GPLv3 ^[1]^, or something from Creative Commons ^[3]^, like the CC-BY-SA ^[2]^ license, would be appropriate for open source hardware. I've come across the CERN-OHL-S ^[4]^, which appears interesting, but I've never encountered it in the wild, so I'm wary of it's apparent obscurity.

References

Type: Webpage. Title: "GNU General Public License". Publisher: "GNU Operating System". Accessed: 2025-09-04T21:29Z. URI: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html.
Type: Webpage. Title: "Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International". Publisher: "Creative Commons". Accessed: 2025-09-04T21:30Z. URI: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en.
Type: Webpage. Title: "About CC Licenses". Publisher: "Creative Commons". Accessed: 2025-04-09T21:31Z. URI: https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/cclicenses/.
Type: Text. Title: "CERN Open Hardware Licence Version 2 - Strongly Reciprocal". Publisher: "CERN". Accessed: 2025-04-09T21:33Z. URI: https://gitlab.com/ohwr/project/cernohl/-/wikis/uploads/819d71bea3458f71fba6cf4fb0f2de6b/cern_ohl_s_v2.txt.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

[…] It was just explained to me by many on Lemmy that not just GPL but the actual definition of Open Source requires that you allow large corporations to profit off your work. […]

IMO, you can define it, or any word, however you want; all that matters is that the definitions are agreed upon between the parties engaging in conversation.

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Those definitions need to match the global standards or you end up with your own confusing jargon.

[–] Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago

See the latter part of my comment.